Discussion Title: Should people go vegan if they can?

1. People should go vegan if they can.
1.1. Con: You don't have to go vegan when [artificial meat](https://vegnews.com/2019/7/price-of-lab-grown-meat-to-plummet-from-280000-to-10-per-patty-by-2021) becomes an available substitute.
1.2. Pro: It would be better for animals if we did.
1.2.1. Pro: Even the most human ways of rearing and killing animals for food always [violate animals' rights](http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/eating_1.shtml) and causes them suffering.
1.2.2. Pro: We kill [more than 58 billion](https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/10/01/enforcing-the-legal-rights-of-animals/eating-meat-is-also-animal-abuse) animals a year worldwide for the production of meat.
1.2.3. Con: We could try to improve animals' quality of life without giving up meat.
1.2.3.1. Pro: Enforcing higher standards of welfare for animals would solve this problem.
1.2.3.2. Con: When a business tries to improve animals' quality of life, the costs get much higher. Nowadays this kind of products exists, but these are not popular and even they not really improve a great change in animals' quality of life
1.3. Pro: If they tried it they would see the benefits on their own bodies but also on their monthly budgets.
1.4. Con: Stopping the raising of animals would also [stop the cultivation of prairies and pastures](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/06/africa/agriculture-regenerative-farming-climate-crisis-intl/index.html) and decrease CO2 capture.
1.4.1. Pro: Livestock are used to [mimic](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2018/12/ranchers-environmentalists-cooperate-to-save-birds-prairies/) native animals' roles that are no longer in their regions anymore to keep the ecosystem going there where crops took away from it.
1.4.1.1. Con: Mimicking native animals is a short-term solution, as what really should be done is bring back the native animals instead to create a true match with the environment/ecosystem to have the best success at preserving it there.
1.5. Con: Putting a complete stop to animal agriculture would mean the loss of many local heritage breeds that are considered of historical and social value in every single culture of the world.
1.5.1. Con: It's a very low price we need to pay. We, humans, can get new traditions and other, better social values and morality.
1.6. Pro: It may lead to post-scarcity when it comes to food.
1.7. Pro: People are responsible for the wellbeing of others around them.
1.7.1. Con: People should be responsible for themselves as a top priority.
1.7.1.1. Con: Even if people is responsible for themselves as a top priority, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't care about the other's wellbeing, once they had solved their own basic issues.
1.7.1.2. Con: If this idea were extended as a universal role, society would likely collapse.
1.7.2. Pro: Since climate change affects everyone, those who can should do their part on behalf of those who can't \(just like how those who can be vaccinated do so for those who can't\).
1.7.2.1. Pro: Even a [gradual reduction](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/sep/28/meat-of-the-matter-the-inconvenient-truth-about-what-we-eat?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1SKVyAH2KNOvJjd0nOxqf74WRQRhTVMGq7kL1mLtxu0W06wv6-U9smJcU#Echobox=1569668583) in animal products \(due to people going vegan when they can\) would go a long way towards helping with climate change
1.7.2.2. Pro: Globally, animal agriculture is responsible for [more greenhouse gases](https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/meat-environment/) than all of the world's transportation systems combined.
1.8. Con: Some climates \(like [oceans, seas](https://www.cbd.int/doc/ref/island/insula-agro-en.pdf), tundra, [deserts, poles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land) \(like the Arctic circle\), etc.\) are not suitable for agricultural farmland.
1.8.1. Con: Due to overfishing, growing populations, climate change, etc., people are turning to [oceanic farming](https://wsg.washington.edu/community-outreach/kelp-aquaculture/) as a more sustainable source of food.
1.8.2. Con: Some countries turn to [land reclamation for agriculture](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-most-reclaimed-land.html).
1.9. Con: Animal grazing can reduce wildfires, as it is an [alternative](https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=29569#:~:text=Livestock%20can%20play%20a%20role,coyote%20brush%20and%20Himalayan%20blackberry) to controlled burns.
1.9.1. Con: Grazing actually [messes up the ecosystem](http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2015/08/21/grazing-leads-to-blazing/) where it changes the proportions of different plant species to increase the ones "that increase fire intensity and frequency" while decreasing the shrubs that actually are fire-suppressing.
1.9.1.1. Pro: Livestock threaten native species when it changes the environment, which causes the removal "[wildlife habitat, plant communities, and beautiful scenery](http://wildlife habitat, plant communities, and beautiful scenery)" that would be difficult to get back.
1.9.2. Con: "[Heavy hoof trampling results in the increase\[s\] severity of erosion that often occurs after wildfires](http://heavy hoof trampling results in the increased severity of erosion that often occurs after wildfires)". This shows that using livestock for reducing wildfires is a pretty bad idea.
1.9.3. Con: There are vegan means of reducing wildfire risk to not resort to animals, such as education \(and resulting action\), fireproof housing, transitioning away from energy grids \(like solar\), wasting less water \(to prevent droughts\), activism, reducing climate change, etc.
1.9.3.1. Pro: Livestock is one of the greatest contributors, if the not the greatest to climate change, which is what increases the number of wildfires. If livestock are limited, then there would be less need to clean up their own mess.
1.9.3.2. Pro: Education is much more important than grazing, as most fires are started by humans in locations that livestock can't even access \(like residential areas or the forest\).
1.10. Con: People don't have to do anything they don't want to.
1.10.1. Con: In society, people are often required to do things they don't want to, such as pay taxes, control violent urges and conform to societal norms.
1.11. Pro: It'll save the environment.
1.11.1. Pro: Big markets like the US and the EU are buying products such as meat and oils that leads to [deforestation](https://qz.com/1692804/fires-in-the-amazon-rainforests-were-likely-intentional/) in areas that have the most forest mass and as such should be preserved at all costs.
1.11.2. Pro: Adopting a plant rich diet is one of the [single most impactful things](https://drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions) an individual can do to help mitigate climate change.